Test‐retest reliability, practice effects and reliable change indices for the recognition memory test

Chris M. Bird · Paola Ricciardelli · Martin N. Rossor · Lisa Cipolotti A

43 citations0/0 files storedBritish Journal of Clinical Psychology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Psychological Testing and Assessment Psychometric Methodologies and Testing Memory Processes and Influences

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The Recognition Memory Test (RMT) is widely used; however, important characteristics such as reliability and stability over time were largely unknown. In this study, we document for the first time test-retest reliabilities, practice effects, and Reliable Change (RC) indices for this test. DESIGN: A sample of 206 normal adults (aged 40-70) were administered twice either the same version or two different versions of the RMT, with a 1-month interval between assessments. The normal sample was split into two groups; a young (aged 40-54) and an old (55-70) group. RESULTS: Test-retest reliabilities were modest when using either the same versions or different versions. Practice effects were abolished when different versions of the RMT were used. In contrast, practice effects were clearly present on the same version of the non-verbal subtest for both control groups. However, practice effects were present on the same versions of the verbal subtest only in the old group. RC indices were rather large when using the same or different versions. CONCLUSION: Although modest, the test-retest reliability of the RMT is no worse than those reliabilities reported for other commonly used recall memory tests. Thus, the inherent clinical advantages of using a recognition paradigm make its use desirable. Usage of different versions of the RMT enables us to avoid practice effects. However, the RC indices indicate that large changes in scores are needed to detect a significant improvement or decline in an individual's performance.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 43 citations exist upstream.

References

1991Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research.1959L’examen Clinique en Psychologie 1995Neuropsychological assessment, 3rd ed.2018The Teacher's Word Book of 30, 000 Words 1992Assessment of Children 1998Hopkins Verbal Learning Test – Revised: Normative Data and Analysis of Inter-Form and Test-Retest Reliability 2014Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology 1988Assessment of children, 3rd ed.

Cited by

2004Monitoring cognitive changes: Psychometric properties of six cognitive tests 2015Reliability and validity of the NeuroCognitive Performance Test, a web-based neuropsychological assessment 2018Standardization and validation of a parallel form of the verbal and non-verbal recognition memory test in an Italian population sample 2008The serial use of child neurocognitive tests: Development versus practice effects.2006The utility of the recognition memory test and the graded naming test for monitoring neurological patients

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.